As for the condom argument. The article states that 'condoms alone are not a good way to stop the spread of AIDS', and that 'recommendations would be to distribute condoms along with taking other measures'. I think this could, at worst, be interpreted as 'condoms don't add to public health' (everything between ' and ' is paraphrased). On the other hand, nowhere does it say that distributing condoms doesn't add to public health. The pope on the other hand says, condoms -> more AIDS, due to a decrease in awareness of the risks and an increase in the numbers of sexual partners. Which to me seems like a fair enough and plausible conclusion, worth further research.
I hope you still agree with me up to here, since I think so far I'm not touching anything the Catholic church wouldn't be fully endorsing. Up until so far
Now here's the part that you might find a little bit on the edge. The subject is worth further research, not worth agreeing with blindly. The pope bans condoms, not because they don't necessarily stop AIDS, but because he is trying to control the sexual morale of people. If there would be a reliable and cheap medicine for AIDS available tomorrow, do you think the pope would say, thank god, now we there is no more practical reason to ban condoms! I think nothing would change for him, and his "abstinence, not condoms" agenda. He'd just find another petty reason why he is right, and others are wrong.